On Jun 15, 2011, at 2:05 PM, Juho Laatu wrote:
On 15.6.2011, at 14.46, Kevin Venzke wrote:
It's better if explaining the method's
rules is enough (or close) to understand the strategy.
...
No, I am (almost) saying that if you have to explain the strategy
separately then that's bad. I think p
On 15.6.2011, at 14.46, Kevin Venzke wrote:
> It's better if explaining the method's
> rules is enough (or close) to understand the strategy.
...
> No, I am (almost) saying that if you have to explain the strategy
> separately then that's bad. I think people will want to understand the
> strategy
Hi Juho,
--- En date de : Mar 14.6.11, Juho Laatu a écrit :
> >>> The explanation may not be not much more
> complex. It
> >> is the strategy where
> >>> I say MinMax is more complicated and, more
> >> importantly, hard to grasp.
> >>
> >> I recommend sincere voting. Teaching multiple
> strategi
On 13.6.2011, at 5.37, Kevin Venzke wrote:
> Hi Juho,
>
> --- En date de : Sam 11.6.11, Juho Laatu a écrit :
>>> --- En date de : Ven 10.6.11, Juho Laatu
>> a écrit :
> I don't recommend that voters not be
>> instructed on how
the method is
> supposed to work.
>
> I think
Hi Juho,
--- En date de : Sam 11.6.11, Juho Laatu a écrit :
> > --- En date de : Ven 10.6.11, Juho Laatu
> a écrit :
> >>> I don't recommend that voters not be
> instructed on how
> >> the method is
> >>> supposed to work.
> >>>
> >>> I think with C//A it is easier to explain how
> to find
> >>
On 12.6.2011, at 2.07, Kevin Venzke wrote:
> Hi Juho,
>
> --- En date de : Ven 10.6.11, Juho Laatu a écrit :
>>> I don't recommend that voters not be instructed on how
>> the method is
>>> supposed to work.
>>>
>>> I think with C//A it is easier to explain how to find
>> the winner, and
>>> the
Hi Juho,
--- En date de : Ven 10.6.11, Juho Laatu a écrit :
> > I don't recommend that voters not be instructed on how
> the method is
> > supposed to work.
> >
> > I think with C//A it is easier to explain how to find
> the winner, and
> > the strategy becomes obvious. No defeat strengths are
>
On 11.6.2011, at 6.09, Dave Ketchum wrote:
> Why are we here?
>
> It certainly made sense to come and explore.
>. We find ourselves asking the voters to do some truncating.
>. Counters may have to adjust counting ballots.
>
> Among the many variant Condorcet methods there are various way
Why are we here?
It certainly made sense to come and explore.
. We find ourselves asking the voters to do some truncating.
. Counters may have to adjust counting ballots.
Among the many variant Condorcet methods there are various ways of
handling cycles that are close to defining CWs -
On 9.6.2011, at 4.54, Kevin Venzke wrote:
> Hi Juho,
>
> --- En date de : Mer 8.6.11, Juho Laatu a écrit :
>> I was busy with other activities for a while but here are
>> some comments.
>>
>>>
>>> --- En date de : Mer 1.6.11, Juho Laatu
>> a écrit :
> I agree with Kevin that "elect the CW
10 matches
Mail list logo